I will make a parenthetical point that the WSJ, while expensive to subscribe, is a very high quality news source and worth paying for if it's in your budget. There are discounts to be found on various sites. And god knows their newsroom needs all the subscribers it can get (just like NYT, etc) to stay independent of their opinion-page-leaning business model that tends to be not so objective (the two are highly separated). Luckily they have a lot of business subscribers who keep them afloat, but I decided to subscribe years ago and never regretted it.
Not all sources are equal in terms of quality and information provided in the linked to article.
IMO, in certain areas (financial industry, investigative journalism, international business issues, etc.) WSJ consistently has better coverage than most other sources - so I'm willing to pay for it now that they've made it much harder for me to get to it.
I regularly read other sources, and if at some point I feel I'm not getting enough value from WSJ, I'll cancel.
How is the WSJ's credibility any better than a blog
If you seriously don't know the difference between a 129-year-old newspaper that has won countless journalism awards, has broken world-changing news, is respected both among its peers and by millions of readers versus some rando blog, then I really don't know what to tell you.
Even worse, introducing the WSJ as "one of America's most respected newspapers" automatically presents the paper in a very positive light -- "respect" is good, "America" is good, so good + good must be good, right?
What if a different formula was used instead, like "one of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers"? It'd be much more correct and impartial, technically (ownership can be proven; "respect", not so much), but the spin would feel quite different.
I was told once that the WSJ has the best reporting because it's the newspaper of Wall Street and other powerful businessmen: they're going to demand accuracy and neutrality because their understanding of the market (and thus their livelihoods) depend on it. Other groups have less actual need for facts, so are more likely to be satisfied with fewer of them (e.g. politically biased coverage).
The Wall Street Journal employs highly reputable journalists with excellent sources. Basic journalism standards for this would require confirmation from three separate sources before publishing. And it's the WSJ -- they don't publish it on a whim, they publish it because it's news they believe to be true.
In the era of fake news and clickbait, I'm very happy to shell out some coin for quality news. I've found WSJ to be one of the most objective newspapers out there (along with BBC) since they focus on describing what happens, rather than adding in lots of conjecture.
The opinion pieces are another story though (pun intended), I generally try to avoid those.
That's really all you can go on.
reply